Joe over at EO has a really nice three part series entitled 10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design.  I’ve listed his main points below, but you’ll have to read the series to get the whole picture.  My favorite part?  In the comments…

There is something that does puzzle me though…while it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of IDists are evengelical christians and counts among them not one single athiest as far as anyone knows,

First, let’s consider that only about 5% of the population is atheist. So that narrows it down somewhat. Second, there are atheists who accept ID. Anthony Flew is probably the most notable one. Todd Moody and David Berlinski are agnostics. And David Stove, rejected neo-Darwinism and he was an atheist.

Also, what about Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. Neither of them were "evangelical Christians" and they both posited a form of "intelligent design" argument for the seeding of life on earth.

EO’s Ten Eleven Ways Darwinists Help ID

  1. By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory
  2. By claiming that ID is stealth creationism
  3. By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments
  4. By claiming that ID isn’t science since it’s not published peer-reviewed literature…and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals
  5. By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features
  6. By invoking design in non-design explanations
  7. By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice against theism – and then having the most vocal critics of ID be anti-religious atheists
  8. By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations
  9. By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that advocates of ID are “ignorant”)
  10. By not being able to believe their own theory
  11. By accusing ID advocates of dishonesty

And I’ve got two of my own to add:

1. By failing to separate evolutionary assumptions from evolutionary empirical science

One of my biggest peeves in arguing with evolutionists is that they love to make this big jump from observable phenomenon (natural selection, speciation, genetic mutations) to macro evolution, assuming that if you’ve seen the former, you’ve seen the latter.  Not only is this intellectually dishonest and lazy, it is poor science.  While they may be correct, they certainly have not proved their case, and there is certainly data to contradict such a leap, such as the pattern we see most often with respect to genetic mutation, regression to the mean (although, this is argued).

This lack of ability or desire to separate assumptions from science also works for evolutionists when critiquing Creation Science – for them, if you have deistic assumptions, you are not doing real science.  However, not only would this exclude most of our greatest historical scientists like Bacon, Newton, Keppler, and Pascal, it also fails to acknowledge that you can do real empirical science to prove and disprove any scientific claims you make based on your assumptions. 

2. By failing to answer objections to evolution, and by being cock-sure of being right, to the point of hubris

Pride is ugly.  And as the bible says, it often leads to a fall.  Not only is the patronizing and over-confident attitude of evolutionary supporters unflattering to them, it makes us all feel like they are blind to the weaknesses, real or perceived, in their worldview.  In fact, they act like fanatics, by whom only the most superficial objections are fielded, while real objections are poo-pooed because they can’t bear to ask the hard questions without threatening their orthodoxy.  No one really believes a fanatic, except other fanatics.  And evolutionists, in acting like narrow, bigoted, self-righteous fanatics, embolden their critics because, in addition to the criticisms of their theory, more doubt it poured on the theory by such obviously faith-driven behaviors.